{ topic: "Foo", opportunity: Opportunity.limit(15)[0] },
{ topic: "Foo", opportunity: Opportunity.limit(15)[2] },
{ topic: "Foo", opportunity: Opportunity.limit(15)[7] },
{ topic: "Foo", opportunity: Opportunity.limit(15)[9] },
{ topic: "Foo", opportunity: Opportunity.limit(15)[11]}
Instead of doing Opportunity.limit(15)[n], does active record offer any convenience functions?
You are looking for offset.
Also note that not passing an order to your query does not guarantee that the query will return the instances ordered by the primary key. So it is best to pass an explicit order.
Opportunity.order(:id).limit(1).offset(2)
Related
I want to test auto-generated CRUD mutations created by calling makeAugmentedSchema from 'neo4j-graphql-js'. There is no problem with creating nodes but creating relationship does not work for me. Please advise on what I am doing wrong here.
Schema:
type Bio{
id: ID!
description: String
}
type Person{
id: ID!
name: String
dob: Date
gender: String
bioRelation: [Bio] #relation(name: "HAS_BIO", direction: "OUT")
}
Mutation:
I am following the Interface Mutations guidance https://grandstack.io/docs/graphql-interface-union-types to create mutation.
mutation {
p: CreatePerson(
name: "Anton",
gender: "Male") {
name
gender
id
}
b: CreateBio(
description: "I am a developer") {
description
id
}
r: AddPersonBioRelation(
from: {id: "p"},
to:{id: "b"}
){
from{
name
}
to{
description
}
}
}
It create Person and Bio nodes but no any relationship gets created between the two:
{
"data": {
"p": {
"name": "Anton",
"gender": "Male",
"id": "586b63fd-f9a5-4274-890f-26ba567c065c"
},
"b": {
"description": "I am a developer",
"id": "a46b4c22-d23b-4630-ac84-9d6248bdda89"
},
"r": null
}
}
This is how AddPersonBioRelation looks like:
Thank you.
I am new to GRANDstack, and I have also been struggling with these types of issues myself. I have typically broken this out separate mutations (in javascript) and used the return value for each as values for the next mutation. for example:
await createIncident({
variables: {
brief: values.brief,
date,
description: values.description,
recordable: values.recordable,
title: values.title
}
}).then((res) => {
addIncidentUser({
variables: {
from: user.id,
to: res.data.CreateIncident.id
}
});
});
the problem that i see in the example you've provided is that you are specifying a string value for from and to as "p" and "b" respectively and NOT the p.id and b.id return values from the parent mutations.
it's fine of me to point that out but what i can't for the LIFE of me figure out is how to properly reference p.id and b.id in the mutation itself. in other words you are trying to send
from: { id: "586b63fd-f9a5-4274-890f-26ba567c065c"}
to: { id: "a46b4c22-d23b-4630-ac84-9d6248bdda89" }
but in reality you are sending
from: { id: "p"}
to: { id: "b" }
which aren't actually references in neo4j so it fails.
if we can figure out how to properly reference p.id and b.id we should get this working.
Thank you, #dryhurst. It appears that there is no way to reference id of newly created nodes, but I found a solution by introducing temp id property. Please see the discussion of this matter and final solution on:
https://community.neo4j.com/t/auto-generated-mutation-does-not-create-relationship/21412/16.
I've recently upgraded from Falcor 0.x to 1.1.0 (2.x will be the next step)
According to the Falcor migration documentation, when calling model.get references are not emitted as json anymore.
I'm however wondering what would be the best practice in order to manage references in a model.get.
Here is an example.
Having the following json graph:
{
jsonGraph: {
comment: {
123: {
owner: { $type: "ref", value: ["user", "abc"] },
message: "Foo"
}
},
user: {
abc: {
name: "John Doe"
initials: "JD"
}
}
}
}
Calling model.get will result to:
const json = await model.get(["comment", "123", ["owner", "message"]);
{
owner: undefined, // 0.x was returning `["user", "abc"]`
message: "John Doe"
}
However it's possible to get the owner only:
const json = await model.get(["comment", "123", "owner", ["name", "initials"]);
{
name: "John Doe",
initials: "JD"
}
What is the recommendation for handling references in model.get?
Should I manually get the owner (like the last example?) or should I have an ownerId instead of an owner reference in comment model?
model.get can take any number of pathSets (docs). So, break your first pathSet into two and pass as separate arguments:
await model.get(
["comment", "123", "message"],
["comment", "123", "owner", ["name", "initials"]]
);
which should return
{
message: "John Doe"
owner: {
name: "John Doe",
initials: "JD"
}
}
The underlying constraint is that a single pathSet can only include multiple paths of the same depth. So multiple paths of different depth can only be represented by multiple pathSets.
An app I am building receives some information in JSON, however the data is very poorly organized. I would like to rebuild the JSON output. The JSON I'm receiving is completely flat, and certain things should be nested. To illustrate what I mean:
I'm getting something like this:
{[
{fullname: 'Joe', session: 'A', time: '5:00', room: 'Ballroom'},
{fullname: 'Abe', session: 'B', time: '5:00', room: 'Bathroom'},
{fullname: 'Mike', session: 'C', time: '6:00', room: 'Bathroom'},
]}
I want something like this:
{
rooms: [
{
name: 'Ballroom',
sessions: [
{
title: 'A',
speakers: [{name: 'Joe'}]
}
]
},
{
name: 'Bathroom',
sessions: [
{
title: 'B',
speakers: [{name: 'Abe'}]
},
{
title: 'C',
speakers : [{name: 'Mike'}]
}
]
}
]
}
Are there any gems that are well equipped for doing something like this? Is there a specific part of the application this manipulation should be done in to follow MVC?
I should note that all this app does is receive this JSON and then makes API calls to another application to create/update information in that app's DB to reflect what's in the JSON.
Use:
JSON.pretty_generate your_hash
For example:
require 'json'
my_json = { :array => [1, 2, 3, { :sample => "hash"} ], :foo => "bar" }
puts JSON.pretty_generate(my_json)
refer to: How can I "pretty" format my JSON output in Ruby on Rails?
You can re-format using jbuilder or rabl gems. Usage and examples are pretty strait forward in their readme
I'm having problems with the Grape gem and the parameters validation.
The idea behind this is to create a complex entity using nested attributes through an API service.
I have a method to create a trip, trip have many destinations and i want to pass that destinations using a hash (using the accepts_nested_attributes_for helper).
I have this grape restriction over the parameter:
requires :destinations, type: Hash
And I'm trying to send something like this:
{ destinations => [
{ destination: { name => 'dest1'} },
{ destination: { name => 'dest2'} },
{ destination: { name => 'dest3'} }
]}
In order to build something like the structure below inside the method and get the trip created:
{ trip: {
name: 'Trip1', destinations_attributes: [
{ name: 'dest1' },
{ name: 'dest2' },
{ name: 'dest3' }
]
}}
I'm using POSTMAN chrome extension to call the API method.
Here's a screen capture:
If someone can help me i would be very grateful.
By the looks of what you are trying to send, you need to change the Grape restriction, because destinations is an Array, not a Hash:
requires :destinations, type: Array
You don't need the "destination" hash when sending the request:
{ destinations => [
{ name => 'dest1', other_attribute: 'value', etc... },
{ name => 'dest2', other_attribute: 'value', etc... },
{ name => 'dest3', other_attribute: 'value', etc... }
]}
This creates an Array of hashes.
In order to send this through POSTMAN, you'll need to modify that destinations param your sending and add multiple lines in POSTMAN. Something like:
destinations[][name] 'dest1'
destinations[][other_attribute] 'value1'
destinations[][name] 'dest2'
destinations[][other_attribute] 'value2'
destinations[][name] 'dest3'
destinations[][other_attribute] 'value3'
Hope this answers your questions. Let me know if this is what you were looking for.
I need to return a leaderboard data in pages via JSON, which is the correct structure, is it this
{
pages: [
{
[
{user: John,
rating:11},
{user: Bob,
rating: 20},
{user: Andy,
rating: 30},
...
]
},
{
[
{user: Sally,
rating: 110},
{user: Peter,
rating: 115},
{user: Jim,
rating: 350},
...
]
},
...
]
}
Or is this (correct JSON)
{
"pages": [
[
{
"user": "John",
"rating": 11
},
{
"user": "Bob",
"rating": 20
},
{
"user": "Andy",
"rating": 30
}
],
[
{
"user": "Sally",
"rating": 110
},
{
"user": "Peter",
"rating": 115
},
{
"user": "Jim",
"rating": 350
}
]
]
}
UPDATE:
Thanks for all the prompt answers, and yes I did construct the JSON by hand which is obviously not a good idea as some of you have pointed out. The 2nd option is the proper JSON and I have updated it with the correct JSON structure for anyone else that might be reading this in the future.
The latter is correct, but you need to enclose all your strings with double quotes. You also used a period instead of a comma after the first closing square bracket.
You may wish to use JSONLint to validate your JSON.
Your first example doesn’t make much sense: pages is an array whose elements are objects but there are no key-value pairs. Your second example makes more sense: pages is an array where which element is in turn another array containing a list of objects.
Note that neither of your examples is valid JSON. As explained in the previous paragraph, your first example has objects with no key-value pairs. Furthermore, in both examples the strings aren’t quoted. In JSON, every string must be quoted, be it a key or a value.
You might want to check out this JSON validator :) http://www.jsonlint.com/
For starters, the first option is not valid JSON. The array:
{
pages: [
{
[ <== HERE
...would require a name. E.g.
{
pages: [
{
"SomeName": [
Also, assuming John, Bob, Andy etc, are strings, then they should be:
[
{user: "John",
rating:11},
{user: "Bob",
rating: 20},
{user: "Andy",
rating: 30},
...
]
Some would also argue that your dictionary member names should be enquoted.